Kang v. Sivilli
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11660
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kang v. Sivilli, Judge McMahon transferred the divorce-related lawsuit from New York to New Jersey because the events and defendants were connected to New Jersey.
Kai Kang and the named defendants are affected because the action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey; the transferee court will decide whether Kang may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
Kai Kang, representing himself, sued his ex-wife, a New Jersey divorce-court judge, and attorneys over his 2015 divorce judgment and the sale of real property in New Jersey. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York.
The court said that venue did not appear proper in New York because the defendants and the events underlying the claims were outside that district. It also concluded that New Jersey was the more appropriate forum because the events occurred there and had no apparent connection to New York.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New York court did not decide whether Kang could proceed without paying filing fees; the transferee court will decide that issue. The order also closed the case in New York and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Kang v. Sivilli · No. 1:19-cv-11660
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
Kai Kang, who alleges that he is a United States citizen residing in Beijing, China, brought the action without a lawyer. He asserted claims arising from his 2015 judgment of divorce, entered in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County Family Part. He sued Nancy Sivilli, identified in the caption as being associated with the State of New Jersey, his ex-wife, the Superior Court judge who presided over the divorce proceedings, and attorneys involved in those proceedings and the sale of real property in Nutley, New Jersey.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction. The court stated that Kang listed New Jersey addresses for the defendants and that the divorce proceedings and property sale occurred in New Jersey. Because the defendants resided outside the Southern District of New York and the underlying events occurred outside that district, venue did not appear proper there under the general venue provisions.
The court also considered transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a court to move a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It found that the underlying events occurred in New Jersey and had no apparent connection to New York. Kang's choice of New York was entitled to less deference because he did not reside in that district and the operative events did not occur there. The court concluded that venue was proper in the District of New Jersey and that the totality of the circumstances supported transfer.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and mail Kang a copy of the order. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Kang could proceed without prepaying fees. The Southern District of New York would not issue a summons, and the order closed the case there. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The court transferred the case without deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.